zen Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 u can laugh about it, and didn't consider the possibility that I intended to quote two posts, but it was mistake, which I duly corrected as soon as I posted. Compare that to the lengths you go about in defending your revolutionary rettardary logic. As always, your contribution to trolling is legendary. Google warriors :giggle: Bhai, you couldn't even fig out that proportions don't matter much when you are cutting straight across the width and you expect ppl to believe that you could figure fallacies out :P
akshayxyz Posted December 16, 2011 Author Posted December 16, 2011 Google warriors :giggle: Bhai, you couldn't even fig out that proportions don't matter much when you are cutting straight across the width and you expect ppl to believe that you could figure fallacies out :P Kaunse proportion, kahan kee kahani kahan fit karne kee koshish kar raha hai....lafandargiri kee bhi hadh hoti hai. if you are referring to alternative solution for 'cutting the board' problem.. then only a rettard can fail to understand that it is not serious attempt to defend "teacher's" reasoning, just exploring a theoretical possibility, assuming the faulty answer to be correct. ab dafa ho yahan se and practice your BODMAS, that is all you will ever grasp.
zen Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Kaunse proportion, kahan kee kahani kahan fit karne kee koshish kar raha hai....lafandargiri kee bhi hadh hoti hai. if you are referring to alternative solution for 'cutting the board' problem.. then only a rettard can fail to understand that it is not serious attempt to defend "teacher's" reasoning, just exploring a theoretical possibility, assuming the faulty answer to be correct. ab dafa ho yahan se and practice your BODMAS, that is all you will ever grasp. Ok, so even when a diagram is provided, you proposed an alternate solution assuming that despite the diagram clearing showing how the board is to be cut, you can cut the board anyhow you please :hehe: Now the stories being made up .... First someone failed to see that not mentioning equal parts doesn't matter in lieu of the diagram, and then you went on to agree with that and we are suppose to believe that goes with the alternate theory you proposed (15mins with a diagram showing a board comically cut) which is not even being referred here If you are trying to display your gyan here, it is a big :fail: .... If you find others logic to be retarded, we will hv to create a new category for folks like you :hysterical:
zen Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 I see both the examinee and examiner are right - can you guess the non-obvious correct answer? ^ that conclusions of yours shows what I just wrote :P Anyways, continue with the next math problem :--D
akshayxyz Posted December 16, 2011 Author Posted December 16, 2011 Ok, so even when a diagram is provided, you proposed an alternate solution assuming that despite the diagram clearing showing how the board is to be cut, you can cut the board anyhow you please :hehe: [Don't think you have passed any quality exams, many times there is a disclaimer that diagrams are not upto the scale and students are free to make certain assumptions] Btw, in this particular question, the diagram does not represent "a board' even remotely. The question statement is faulty on few other accounts. If I were the teacher, I might even give extra credit to a student - who answered 15 minutes - with a better corrected diagram of a board, or even simply points out that the question is wrong, not clear enough or the diagram is wrong (as long as he can back it up with reasoning). anyway, I am not surprised - rettards are not known to think laterally, even when it is for fun and not serious discussion. [since, rettards wont get it - the discussion about alternative solution is a play on - "teacher can't be wrong".] Now the stories being made up .... First someone failed to see that not mentioning equal parts doesn't matter in lieu of the diagram, and then you went on to agree with that and we are suppose to believe that goes with the alternate theory you proposed (15mins with a diagram showing a board comically cut) which is not even being referred here If you are trying to display your gyan here, it is a big :fail: .... If you find others logic to be retarded, we will hv to create a new category for folks like you :hysterical: Thanks for existing, life would be so dull without people like you.
zen Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 [Don't think you have passed any quality exams' date= many times there is a disclaimer that diagrams are not upto the scale and students are free to make certain assumptions] Btw, in this particular question, the diagram does not represent "a board' even remotely. The question statement is faulty on few other accounts. If I were the teacher, I might even give extra credit to a student - who answered 15 minutes - with a better corrected diagram of a board, or even simply points out that the question is wrong, not clear enough or the diagram is wrong (as long as he can back it up with reasoning). anyway, I am not surprised - rettards are not known to think laterally, even when it is for fun and not serious discussion. [since, rettards wont get it - the discussion about alternative solution is a play on - "teacher can't be wrong". :hysterical: So you read a disclaimer and since the diagram doesn't represent a board you are right .... Btw, contrary to what you claim, you are the only one, iirc, to suggest that the examiner is also right :haha: Anyways, what would I know. I need a calculator to do 2+2, so i will let learned folks like you to display their Gyan and give us a few laughs :hehe: Let's see how akshay solves another math
coffee_rules Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 teacher :fail: 10 mts - 2 pieces, 15 mts - 3 pieices 20 mts - 4 pieces Wow!
Jersey #10 Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 how about this ? Second last step (10+10) (10-10) should equal to (20)(0)...This is an epic :fail:
Jersey #10 Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 It can be 15 mins too if you cut one of the halves into two and make it three. That's still cutting it twice... if cutting the wood once takes 10 min. it would take 20 to cut it twice
urbestfriend Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 That's still cutting it twice... if cutting the wood once takes 10 min. it would take 20 to cut it twice Not necessarily. If the board looks something like this, then second time, it'd take half of the time taken for the first time sawing or less than that depending on how you cut.
Brainfade Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Not necessarily. If the board looks something like this, then second time, it'd take half of the time taken for the first time sawing or less than that depending on how you cut. That is a 2nd grade-school worksheet from a Math series called Sunshine Math. My 1st-grade daughter gets these for HW every week, and I recognized it from the font and the stars on the side which represent level of difficulty. I dug it up, and here is the entire worksheet: http://carmelpta.org/documents/sunshinemath/second_06.pdf It says "Sunshine Math - 2" on the top. That means 2nd grade. The reason I bring that up is that the answer most likely does not involve consideration of complications like you mention. The key point (and most appalling) is the teacher's bullspit logic. And then they wonder why American kids lag behind in science and math.
DomainK Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 That is a 2nd grade-school worksheet from a Math series called Sunshine Math. My 1st-grade daughter gets these for HW every week, and I recognized it from the font and the stars on the side which represent level of difficulty. I dug it up, and here is the entire worksheet: http://carmelpta.org/documents/sunshinemath/second_06.pdf It says "Sunshine Math - 2" on the top. That means 2nd grade. The reason I bring that up is that the answer most likely does not involve consideration of complications like you mention. The key point (and most appalling) is the teacher's bullspit logic. And then they wonder why American kids lag behind in science and math. How do you know they are American??? Just because the teacher is dumb? There are some dumb people even outside America.
zen Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Only at places like the ICF, a grade 2 math Q would be made out to be something like from a competitive exam ( ignoring even the diagram provided) :haha:
Brainfade Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 How do you know they are American??? Just because the teacher is dumb? There are some dumb people even outside America. Well ... I am in America, my kid is in America, she gets sunshine math homework (developed by FL DOE, it is used in other states too), her teacher is American, I work at an American university, everyone complains about American kids lagging other countries in Math and Science. So, I made the logical connection.
THX_1138 Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Stop thinking of this as number of minutes per piece, but approach it as one cut per 10 minutes. to make three pieces, at least 2 cuts must be made. thus, 10 x 2 = 20 minutes. teacher must be pakistani.
zen Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Second last step (10+10) (10-10) should equal to (20)(0)...This is an epic :fail: Hope you are not serious!! .... In the step you are talking abt, the zero above gets cancelled by the zero below The problem is in division by zero is not defined (seen in the previous step(s) to the one you are pointing at) I.e. (10*10) - (10*10) divided by 10(10-10) Ps shocked by the math fail displayed here, I even didn't use the :haha: smileys
yoda Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Finally some sense injected into this thread by CA. :two_thumbs_up: LOL @ guys coming up with 8 different ways to cut a piece of wood into 3 pieces. :hehe:
nikred Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Based on some of the posts here, the answer should be "insufficient data". :cantstop:
J P K Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 How about this. [ i = sqrt(-1) ] See whether you can figure out the fallacy here :) :vroam: Second last step (10+10) (10-10) should equal to (20)(0)...This is an epic :fail: cancel the numerator and denominator
flamy Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Obviously, 20 is the right answer. Was akshay's original question how to prove the teacher's answer right?
Recommended Posts